5 responses to “Donor Centricity — The Missing Ingredient”

1. John Lepp says:

   February 23, 2017 at 9:42 am

   Roger… I think I know the answer. After sharing examples of how you allow your donors to talk to YOU (the org) and asking how many of YOU (the org) invite feedback, or provide opportunity to share values and emotions, or ask what moves you or why your nature matters to you or what’s missing from our newsletter or asking the donor to tell us a story about themselves, etc, etc… we ask this question wherever we go. How many of you (the org) ask or allow your donor to talk to you… you know how many hands go up? None. I’ve been in rooms of all sizes and have asked this question.

   None.

   You ask why. I think because 1) it’s never occurred to the org ask for it and 2) because they don’t really want it or care to hear it.

   I am not trying to smear all orgs with the same brush – as I assume there MUST be some that actually do ask for it and do care what their donors feel or think about.

   #donorlove is a long game, not a short game. As our pal Damian O’Brion says – #donorlove is in all of the 1000 small things you do – it’s not just saying thank you and using the word “YOU” over and over…

   #donorlove is actually quite simple but it is extremely hard work. It’s about emotional language and the needs of others…

   and finally to your point – #donorlove is a relationship and it’s conversation. it’s not a pitch. and it’s not sales conversion or ROI.

   If you aren’t allowing your donors to talk to you (and you actually don’t listen to what they are telling you and caring about it), please don’t tell me you are #donorloving or #donorcentered or anything else.

2. Simone Joyaux says:

   February 23, 2017 at 12:01 pm

   Yes to both of you, Roger and John.

   In so many ways, we aren’t a “real” profession. “Real” in the sense of study and academic research and required knowledge. I’m an example. Masters degree in 20th century French and English literature. Intended to be a teacher. Never found a job. Fell into nonprofits. Fell in love. And then started reading everything. And attended conferences.

   I think I’m pretty well educated as a fundraiser and governance and planning person. And I continue reading and studying. But lots of NGO employees don’t read or continue reading. And lots of NGO employees don’t follow research. No time. Etc. etc.

   I do NOT agree that if NGOs would just act more like businesses, all would be well. I think that’s mostly crap. But I do believe that NGOs and their employees and boards and board members need more knowledge about bodies of knowledge and research and and and ….

   And our sector does a huge disservice to the sector, to our organizations, to the ultimate beneficiaries and to donors because we don’t demand better and “right” performance and more expertise and and and ….

   Thank you and all the others who keep fighting and telling the truth and…

3. Tom Ahern says:

   February 23, 2017 at 7:31 pm

   To quote: “These folks knew that applications and terms like ‘donor love’ are largely bullshit. They know that the use of the ‘you’ pronoun is largely bullshit and that such so-called ‘best practices’ largely miss the mark.”

   Largely bullshit. Largely bullshit. Largely miss the mark. Well, thank you very much for trashing a lot of fine work by a lot of fine people who think you’re wonderful and smart and fair.

   Unless April Fools’ Day came early this year, Roger, I find these comments ignorant, offensive, misleading and, as someone who famously harps on and on about the power of the pronoun “you” to warm up donor communications, personally insulting.

   You’re the guru of gurus: fundraisers are going to read what you demean as “‘thank yous’ on pretty paper” and conclude, “Well. I knew it was all bunk. And now Roger has proven me right.”

   For 15 years I’ve been trying to demonstrate to fundraisers the difference between CORPORATE communications (which most charities still do) and DONOR communications (which they don’t yet do, to the detriment of their income). And that’s just me.

   Where do you get off belittling all the serious, dedicated work of boundary-pushers like Agents of Good and Bluefrog and countless others who are experimenting with #donorlove and similar ideas?

   I have plenty of proof that donor-centricity, as we’re teaching and practicing and developing it (including using surveys like your handy little product, DonorVoice), can lead to huge improvements in giving … with grateful testimonials from $1 billion charities like Food for the Poor to major hospital systems like Sharp in San Diego all the way down to local libraries.

   I’m just baffled and saddened by this attack. I thought we were all in this together.

4. Pamela Grow says:

   February 24, 2017 at 2:45 pm

   Thank you, Tom, Ken, Simone, and John for articulating so clearly what I was thinking as I read this particular column this morning.

   Story: Back up to my first job in fundraising, as a 15-hour a week development director for a $3 million dollar agency. The wealth of information available online now was absent then. I was flying by the seat of my pants. Thanks to a successful local businessman, this particular organization had run a hugely successful capital campaign just five years prior, raising over $5 million for a new facility. Nothing had been done since. Major donors were ignored. Stewardship was non-existent.

   Our donor base was dying off and the organization’s individual appeal had been on a five-year decline. So I queried the donor base I did have access to, and selected 20 loyal donors who had given every year for at least five years, despite no stewardship. I wrote a letter of introduction asking why they had supported the organization. I sent it out, along with a brief survey and a stamped, self-addressed envelope.

   You see, I knew that the heart and soul of my fundraising plan would be to learn what our donors’ motivations were.

   Eighteen responded. Several sent in checks, although I hadn’t asked for money. Three eventually became major donors.

   So, yes, I think it’s fair to say that I’ve got a firm grasp on the importance of feedback in relation to sustainable fundraising.

   Here’s the thing about donor-centricity, though. It’s frequently relegated to the background, and so many nonprofits still don’t get it, no matter how many times it’s hammered home, and no matter how many supportive anecdotes are illuminated. Donor-centricity is deeply nuanced, cultural, and complicated, yet I’ve witnessed, time and time again, how fellow fundraisers have attempted to simplify it, and sometimes even deride it.

   The reality is, it’s jigsaw puzzle comprising many pieces, with donor feedback being just one of them. It’s not all about a single tactic, or how many “yous” you can fit into your copy. It IS about truly understanding what it means to be donor-centered from an organizational perspective, to embrace it from the inside out. Knowing your donor. Respecting your donor. Mindset. It’s everyone’s responsibility, from your ED, to your board, to your staff, to your volunteers. You cannot wash your hands of this (and all it entails) or leave it to the marketing or the development department.

   My overriding goal for my readers and students is to teach them to think — really think — about how they can approach everything from a wholly donor-focused perspective. Embracing donor-centricity involves a life-long learning process. It demands comprehensive coursework and/or training, and believe it or not, passion. And yes, that means being attuned to donor love. What it is, its wealth of potential by way of donor relationships, and how to navigate it, day after day.

   I can’t discount it. I don’t think any serious fundraiser should.

5. Mark Williams says:

   March 17, 2017 at 12:13 am

   Like every fundraiser I’m sure, I’ve come across ‘donor-centric’ organisations and those that simply can’t seem to grasp the concept.

   The language of an organisation is both an expression of its ‘personality’, culture and beliefs, and can influence the same. I agree with previous comments, education, leadership, and a range of complex factors all play a role in how donor-centric an organisation is or is not.

   I was wondering if it’s possible to identify the key influences on an organisation’s ability and/or willingness to be donor-centric? For example, two extremes that I’ve personally come across.

   First, a very large organisation with multiple silos and competing objectives, very hierarchically organised (reminiscent of the military), with a narcissistic leader, lots of back-stabbing and bullying, high staff turnover, and a world-view the organisation was ‘superior’ in its power relationships with stakeholders, and funded largely by the government. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this organisation was very far from being donor-centric in terms of its language and practice.

   Second, a small organisation with an emotionally intelligent leader, clear vision in terms of mission and beneficiaries, caring of its employees with very low staff turnover, dependent on the support of a small number of major donors, and a shared world view which placed donors and beneficiaries as being in a superior position in terms of its power relationships. Again, perhaps not surprisingly this organisation was extremely donor-centric in its communication and behaviour. And interestingly enough, because it took the time to listen to and understand its donors, it had a donor attrition rate close to zero.

   I’m sure there are a vast number of factors that can influence an organisations predisposition to be donor-centric or not. From experience, I believe they include (not necessarily in priority order):

   1. Culture: Although there often isn’t a single identifiable ‘culture’ in large complex organisations, if the prevailing culture is one that reflects a ‘mentally fit’ organisation, truly respectful of staff and stakeholders with good management practices and open and collaborative communication, it is more likely to be donor-centric than one that is not.

   2. Leadership: Isn’t it strange how often narcissists and organisational psychopaths achieve leadership positions? Perhaps because they are often considered to be ‘true leaders’ and people who ‘get things done’. And maybe there is some truth in that. Whatever, an organisation lead by a narcissist or organisational psychopath is going to have trouble embracing the concept of donor-centricity.

   3. Size and complexity: The larger and more complex an organisation is, the more difficult to instil shared values and beliefs, including a belief in the value of donor-centricity. Organisations with silos working against each other and with rigid hierarchies are less likely to be donor-centric.

   4. Sources of income: If an organisation derives its income largely from government or other non-philanthropic source, then it is less likely to be donor-centric than one which depends on the support of donors. In Australia, it’s fascinating to see how the disability sector, which is moving from a direct government funding model to a user pays system, is having to scramble to refresh its approach to engaging with the community (beneficiaries, donors, potential collaborators, etc). The sector is at the beginning of a learning curve to become more donor-centric.

   5. Education: Obviously very important that people in an organisation responsible for fundraising, development and communication are well-educated in the techniques and benefits of being donor-centric. But, no matter how conversant they are in being donor-centric, it’s a struggle when they are operating in a culture that does not support this way of thinking and behaving.

   As said, I’m sure there are a host of other influences in addition to the above list on an organisation’s predisposition to be donor-centric or not. Changing its language is very important. Changing its ‘mental fitness’ and world-view can be even more of a challenge!